The Warner sun. (Warner, Brown Co., Dakota [S.D.]) 1885-1???, 1887-12-09
PROHIBITION SUSTAINED.
The United States Supreme Court De-
cidps the Kansas Prohibition Cases
in Favor of the State.
An Exhaustive DisQuisitiOn Upon the
Right OF q State to Enact and En-
force Prohibition Laws.

WASHINGTON. Dec. GA very important
decision, and one likely to be far-rcachlng III
it's consequences was rendered IN the UnlteQ
States supreme court to-day in the Kansas
Prohibition cases of Mugler against the Sbatd
of Kansas and the State of Kansas against DE
bold and others The judgment OF the court
was announced in a long opinion by Justice
Harlan. who said:
The general question in each case IS WheIhet
the prohibition statutes Of Kansas are IN cOuhiCU
with that clause of the fourteenth amendment
which provides that no state shall make or en-
force any law which shall abridge me privileges
or immuni, les Of citizens OF the United SI&IeH'
nor shall any state deprive any person on me,
liberty or property without due process OF Jaw.
That legislation by n state prohibiting the man
ufacture within her limits or Intoxicating
liquors, to be there sold or Dartereu lot general
nse az a beverage, does not necessarily infringe
any right, privilege or immunity secured oE inc
constitution OF the United States, is MADE Clear
by the decisions of the court rendered before
and since the adoption Of the fourteenth amend
mCnt 1t is, however, COntended that. AltuOu4u
the state may prohibit the manufacture OF In
tOxicating liquors for sale or barter WITHIN het
limits for general use as a beverage, no cOnvcn-
tion or legislature has the right undeP
our form OF government 10 pronipiS
anv citizen from manufacturing ior ms
own use or for export or storage, any
article of food or drink not endanger1ng or
affecting the rights Of others. Inc argument
made in support of the first branch or TINS
proposition is: That in the implied compacLS
between the state and the citizen, certain rights
are reserved by the latter which are guaranteed
by tn" constitutional provisions for the pro-
lection of life, liberty ana properly EsalIsI &c
priVation without due process of law anu with
which the state cannot interfere; thaJ a" OnG
these rights is that Of manufacturing Tor one
own use either food or drink; that, while aC-
Cording to the doctrines of the the
state may cOntr"l the tastes, appetltes, habits,
dress. food and drink Of the citizen, our system
of government, based upon the lndlvldualf
and intelligence of the people, does not claim -
control him except as to his conduct 10 others,
leaving him the sole judge as to all that only
affects himself. 1t will be observed that tho
proposition and the argument made in support
of it equally conCede that the right to manu-
facture drink for ones personal use is subject to
the condition that such manufacture does not
AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
If such manufacture does prejudtcially affect
the RIGHTS and interests Of the community, 1t
follows from the very premises stated by COun-
sci that society has the power TO protect itself
by legislation against the injurious consequences
of that business. As WAS said in Mum vs.. HI
nOis GA y. S., l24, while power does not exist
with the whole people to control nights that are
purely and exclusively private, government may
require each citizen so to conduct himself and
so TO use his own property as not unnecessarily
to injure another. But by whom or by what Hu-
thOrity is il to be determined whether the man
ufacture Of particular articles Of drink, either
for general use or for the DeraOnal use Of the
maker. will injuriOusly affect the public? Power
to determine such questions so as TO bind all
must exist somewhere, else society will be at the
mercy of the few who, regarding only their own
appetites or passions, may be wiling TO imperi
the peace and security of the many, provided
only they are allowed to do as they please. Under
our system that power is lodged with the legis-
latiVe branch of the government. IL belongs to
that department to exert the police powers OF
the state. 1t must determine primarily what
measures are appropriate or needful for the pro-
lection of the public morals, the public health
or the public safety. II does not at all follow
FROM those principle that every statute enacted
ostenstbly for The promotion Of these ends is to
be accepted as a legitimate eXertiOn eff the police
powers of the state. There are of necessity
limits beyond which legislation cannot rightly
go. As the courts must obey the constitution
rather than the laW-making department OF the
government, it must upon it's responsibility de-
termine whether in amy particular case these
limits have been passed. The courts are not
bound by m3re forms nor are they TO be misled
by mere pretenses. They are at liberLy-indeed
are under a solemn duty-to look at the sub
stance OF things whenever they enter upon the
inquiry. whether the legislature has transcended
the limits of it's authority. II, therefore, a
statute purportingto have been enacted to pro-
tect the public health, the public morals or the
public safety, has no real or substantial rela-
tions to those objects of rights secured by the
fundamental law. IL is the duty of the courts to
50 6djddse and thereby give effect 90 tine consul
tuition. Keeping IN view these principles as
governing the relations with each other of the
judicial and legislative departments Of govern
ment, 1t is
DIFFICULT TO PERCEIVE ANY GROUND
for the judiciary to declare that the prohibition
by Kansas of the manufacture or sale within
her limits of intoxicating liquors for general use
there as a beverage is not fairly adapted to the
end OF protecting the community against the
evils which confessediy result from the excess
i've use of ardent spirits. There is here no JUS
tifcation for holding that the state. under the
guise of police regulations, is aiming to deprive
this citizen of his constitutional rights: for we
cannot shut out of view the fact, within the
knowledge of all, that the public health, the
public morals and the public safety may be en-
daugered by the general use OF Intoxicating
drinks. Nor can we ignore the fact, established
by statistics accessible to every one. that the
disorder, pauperism and crime prevalent in the
country are in large measure directly traceabIe
TO this evil. IL, therefore. a state deems the abb
solnte prohibition OF the manufacture and sale
within her limits OF Intoxicating liquors
Ior other IMAM medlcai sclentifc and
manufacturing purposes 70 be necessary to the
peace and dignity Of society, the courts cannot,
without usurping legislative functions, override
the Will of the people as thus expressed by their
chosen representatives. IL is a fundamental
principle in our institutions. indispensable to
che preservation OF public liberty, That one of
usurp powers committed by the constitution to
another department.. And 80, If in the judg-
ment of the legislature the manufacture OF in
toxicating liquors for the makers own use as a
beverage would tend 70 cripple, IL not 20 defeat
her efforts to guard the community against the
evils attending the excessive use OF such liquors,
what is best and safest for the community, to
disregard the legislative determination of that
question. So far from such a regulation being
accomplished, it Is easy to be seen that
the entire scheme of prohibition, as
embodied in the constitution and laws
Of each citizen 70 manufacture intoyf satina
liquors for his own use as a beverage were recoQ.
nized- Such q right does not inhere In citizen.
snip. Nor can IL be said that the government In
~terferes with or impairs any ones congtitntional
rights OF liberty or OF prcperty when it deter
mines thst the manufacture and sale OF fntoxi-
catlng drinks for general or individual use as a
beverage are or may become hurtful to society
and to every member OF 1t. and is therefore 4
business In which no one can lawfully engage.
This conclusion Is unavoidable unless the four
teen1h amendment nf the Constitution takes
from the states OF the Union those powers OF
police that were reserved at the time the orig
Inal constitution was adopted Bat this court
has declared, upon full consideration lin Bar
bier ysS yonnelly, l13UsS., 31.1 that the four
teenth amendment hS9 no snch effect.